(29-03-2016 11:05 PM)Vosur Wrote: And since presidential candidates are not allowed to communicate with Super PACs that endorse them, it shows just how blatantly she was lying in that article.

Actually, so far as I can tell, that lie is only given in the headline, which she didn't write. She admits herself that she was only part of the super PAC: "Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC."

Everything else she says is based on what Trump said in public rather than private conversations with him. The only other two things I could see you taking issue with are:

It's an op ed, which means it's her opinion of him.

This statement, which we can't know one way or the other is true: "Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.

The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy."

To me, it looks like an op ed that was oversold in the article with a blatantly false headline.

(29-03-2016 11:05 PM)Vosur Wrote: And since presidential candidates are not allowed to communicate with Super PACs that endorse them, it shows just how blatantly she was lying in that article.

Actually, so far as I can tell, that lie is only given in the headline, which she didn't write. She admits herself that she was only part of the super PAC: "Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC."

Everything else she says is based on what Trump said in public rather than private conversations with him. The only other two things I could see you taking issue with are:

It's an op ed, which means it's her opinion of him.

This statement, which we can't know one way or the other is true: "Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.

The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy."

To me, it looks like an op ed that was oversold in the article with a blatantly false headline.

Here's what I found by reading it twice:

• "What was once Trump's desire to rank second place to send a message to America and to increase his power as a businessman has nightmarishly morphed into a charade that is poised to do irreparable damage to this country if we do not stop this campaign in its tracks."
• "I'll say it again: Trump never intended to be the candidate."
• "He doesn't want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House."

He never said any of these things in public.

• "In fact, many people are not aware of the Trump campaign's internal slogan, but I will tell you. [...] Inside the Trump camp, the slogan became 'Let Trump Be Trump.'"

How would she even know what the campaign's internal slogan is? She was never a part of it.

• "He had an opportunity after the terror attacks in Belgium and instead he used the opportunity to talk about closing the borders and what a mess that country had become. I was appalled that he offered no condolences or words of support; he merely gave his 'build a wall' stump speech and talked about his greatness."

• "I loved Trump's outsider status. But a year has now passed since I was first approached to become part of Team Trump."

She was never approached to become part of "Team Trump" unless she uses that term to describe a group of people that had nothing to do with his campaign.

• "He would stab any one of his supporters in the back if it earned him a cent more in his pocket."

That's technically an opinion, but it's very dishonest all the same. I would recommend you to look up the list of his personal philanthropic acts. Here's one from yesterday:

The point I'm trying to make by pointing out these things is this: One of Trump's most popular and frequently used phrases is that the media is completely dishonest and untrustworthy. Why don't these people understand that they only increase his support by confirming this narrative? The most significant example of this dishonesty is when he talked about illegal immigrants back in June 2015 and half a dozen major media outlets reported that he called all "Latinos", "Mexicans", "immigrants" or "Latino/Mexican immigrants" rapists and criminals. How many times does he have to raise in the polls until the media realizes that they're only helping his candidacy with their disingenuous reporting? I really don't think he would be as popular as he is today if these people had reported accurately and honestly about him from the start.

(30-03-2016 07:18 AM)Vosur Wrote: I really don't think he would be as popular as he is today if these people had reported accurately and honestly about him from the start.

Accuracy and honesty is nice from newspapers, but it's uncommon too, because one of the basic tenets of newsreporting is *selling* the news.

Also I disagree. Most of the current furor over Trump is fueled by his campaign - he says horrible things which newspapers love to report, that generates angry backlash from the left, then legions of assholes from the right step in and defend the bullshit. It feeds right into the "the left/the news/everyone is persecuting me because I say it how it is" line that Trump is using. Basically the way things are now, everything Trump does generates a feedback loop that amplifies it immensely.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(30-03-2016 07:18 AM)Vosur Wrote: The point I'm trying to make by pointing out these things is this: One of Trump's most popular and frequently used phrases is that the media is completely dishonest and untrustworthy. Why don't these people understand that they only increase his support by confirming this narrative?

I think this is a lesson most people attacking him have learned a bit too late. Whether it be the media, the RNC, pundits, or other candidates, the more they lash out, the more it appears to confirm a narrative and either bolster Trump's numbers, or solidify his already existing support.

The very nature of his candidacy is unorthodox, and many people are finding out the hard way that their standard tactics tend to backfire.